ArticlePsychiatry investigation2026
Shared Decision Making as a Policy and Clinical Framework for the Responsible Introduction of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Therapy in Japan.
Article in Psychiatry investigation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveRepetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) has expanded in Japan since its inclusion under public insurance in 2019. This review examines systemic barriers to equitable adoption, ethical and legal challenges, and proposes Shared Decision Making (SDM) as a clinical and policy framework to ensure patient-centered care.
methodsA narrative policy and practice review was conducted, synthesizing evidence from peer-reviewed studies, registry data, government guidance, and professional society statements. Comparative analysis with the United States and Europe was used to contextualize Japan's distinctive financing and governance arrangements.
resultsImplementation of rTMS in Japan remains concentrated in tertiary hospitals and metropolitan centers, with limited diffusion to rural areas. Strict eligibility criteria under public insurance restrict access, while private-pay clinics have proliferated with heterogeneous protocols and variable disclosure practices. These structural imbalances generate inequities in access, ethical tensions regarding transparency, and legal concerns about informed consent. Additional barriers include limited public awareness, variability in provider expertise, and constrained outpatient consultation time. International comparisons highlight broader indications and more flexible reimbursement abroad, supported by stronger governance structures.
conclusionEmbedding SDM into both insured and private rTMS practice in Japan is essential to safeguard equity, transparency, and sustainability. A pragmatic SDM framework, incorporating standardized information materials, AI-enabled decision aids, multidisciplinary collaboration, and registry-linked accountability, can transform rTMS adoption into a model of patient-centered governance. Institutionalizing SDM will not only improve treatment concordance and patient trust in Japan but also provide lessons for global mental health policy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.